11th Jul 2010, 16:21

I own a Honda CR-V, and I agree and disagree with the CR-V being a 4-cylinder only. I love my CR-V, but sometimes I really do wish it had more power. Getting onto the highway can be a real struggle. And trying to stay at a speed any higher than 65 MPH is impossible. Even when climbing hills on the highway, my CR-V has to shift down into 3rd gear and scream at 5,000 RPM in order to make it up a large hill. Gas mileage doesn't make up for it either, as I can only get as much as 25 MPG.

The CR-V's 2.4L inline-4 cylinder is borrowed from the Accord. The Accord is a lighter car with much less surface area. In the Accord, this engine makes perfect sense, and has more than enough power to move it along with ease. The CR-V is heavier and has a lot more surface area, and coupled with 4WD (like my CR-V) this same engine becomes overwhelmed.

The Accord's V6 (a 3.5L) should be an option in the CR-V. A V6 would make the CR-V much more livable in everyday driving. It wouldn't really affect gas mileage to much, as the V6 would get roughly the same mileage as the 4 cylinder (the 4 cylinder could get much better mileage, but to keep a heavy car like the CR-V moving, it has to work much harder than the V6).

The 4-cylinder should definitely remain in the CR-V, however it needs a power boost. My 2006 CR-V makes 156 HP and 161 lb/ft of torque. If it made 180 HP and 170 lb/ft of torque, it would be absolutely perfect. This wouldn't affect gas mileage too much (it might even improve it slightly) and everyday driving would be much easier. The engine would also last much longer, as it wouldn't need to work so hard to keep the CR-V moving.